Budget wide angle lens for 8x10

[Kwatson]

Hi

Since getting started in 8x10 I've been looking for a wide angle lens similar to my 90mm Super Angulon for my 4x5.

I've been eyeing the Schneider Super Angulon 165mm on ebay, but at over $1000CAD it's not exactly in the budget right now.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more budget option?

[Willie]

120mm f/8 Nikkor SW.

Am seeing them for under $400. Two I have used cover 8x10.

[Peter De Smidt]

159mm WA Raptar. Your camera might limit what lenses are easy to use.

[Mark Sampson]

8x10 has never been an amateur format, and wide-angle lenses that cover the format have never been cheap (or common). There are several threads about the subject on this forum, some quite lengthy. I'd do a search...
I will say that I liked shooting on 8x10 with a 250/6.3 Wide Field Ektar, and wish that I'd kept that kit, but that's not really a budget option.
No doubt someone with more knowledge than me will speak up shortly... best of luck!

[John Kasaian]

159mm Wollensaks are wide, cover 8x10 and don't go for much, so that is what I bought.
In the real world though, I found it's too wide for most applications and rarely gets used so it spends most of it's time on a 5x7
If you already have a 210mm G Claron or your 4x5, I'd suggest giving that a try.

[ic-racer]

Hi

Since getting started in 8x10 I've been looking for a wide angle lens similar to my 90mm Super Angulon for my 4x5.

I've been eyeing the Schneider Super Angulon 165mm on ebay, but at over $1000CAD it's not exactly in the budget right now.

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more budget option?


Fujinon 180mm. Image circle claim is 305mm and it covers the opening in my 8x10 film holders.
I got this for about $175, I think they might cost more now, but maybe not.

200043

[William Whitaker]

Comparable to 90mm on 4x5?
210mm (8 1/4") Dagor. f/6.3 gives you adequate light with which to focus. Often available in an Ilex #3 synchro shutter. Not the most modern, but they can be good. And not a lot of money. Also fairly lightweight and it's small enough to fit on a Technika lensboard.
I'll admit up front that it's longer than a strict 90-on-4x5 equivalent. But it still gives a feeling of breadth and openness which compares well. As you move up through Large Format into larger negatives sometime things don't equate directly. You really just have to look at it and decide if it does what you want. IC's Fuji suggestion above fits the comparison formula ideally. So this is simply suggested as an alternate solution

It's what I use and I like it.
My 2¢, fwiw.

[angusparker]

120mm f/8 Nikkor SW.

Am seeing them for under $400. Two I have used cover 8x10.

Had one. Barely covers straight on and needs the right camera given bellows and standard issues with vignetting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[angusparker]

Fujinon 210/5.6 with inside lettering is a good option. Computar 210/9 a more expensive option with more coverage. Both not quite as wide but nearly what you want. Otherwise, the gold star is the Schneider 150/5.6 SSXL but a pretty penny.

[Dan Fromm]

There's now a 210/6.8 Boyer Beryl (Dagor clone, claimed coverage 384 mm) in barrel but front-mounted on a Compound shutter on ebay.fr. 185 Euros, not clear whether the seller, in Germany, will ship outside the EU but asking is cheap.

[Kwatson]

Fujinon 180mm. Image circle claim is 305mm and it covers the opening in my 8x10 film holders.
I got this for about $175, I think they might cost more now, but maybe not.

200043

Thank you very much! I found one on ebay for under $100 with a dysfunctional aperture I'm going to attempt to fix. Thanks everyone for their suggestions, I guess I'll know if I like it when it gets here.

[Bernice Loui]

312mm image circle is required to "just" cover 8x10 direct on center. IMO, 305mm image circle is too small for 8x10.

Might be better served with a 210mm inside lettering Fujinon W instead of the 180mm. Know this will be about 80 degrees angle of view (spec for inside lettering Fujinon W) or medium wide, not really wide.

Good wide angle lenses for 8x10 has alway been an issue with a long list of trade-offs. While vintage lenses like Protar V is tiny and will "cover" 8x10, these have a small working aperture as with similar vintage 8x10 wide angle lenses. Modern wide angles that are tooted to cover like 120mm SW Nikkor, 120mm and 121mm Super Angulon does sort of cover 8x10, they have significant limitations. GOOD 8x10 wide angles like 150mm Super Symmar XL, 155mm Grandagon, 165mm Super Angulon, 200mm Grandagon, 210mm Super Angulon and ... are not low cost and comes with heft and bulk that is beyond the want-need of some 8x10 image makers.

Essentially, 8x10 is NOT a low cost film format. one box of 8x10 film and processing could easily exceed $100. IMO, "bargain" 8x10 lenses and related is "penny wise-pound foolish"..

Then again, this has been the standing opinion for many decades now.. All a matter of what one is trying to achieve with 8x10.


Bernice





Thank you very much! I found one on ebay for under $100 with a dysfunctional aperture I'm going to attempt to fix. Thanks everyone for their suggestions, I guess I'll know if I like it when it gets here.

[Corran]

I used a 210mm f/5.6 Symmar-S for a while (~$150) before upgrading to a Graphic Kowa 210mm f/9 (I paid $450, higher now).


The Symmar covers with a tiny bit extra, GK covers with enough to spare for almost any amount of movements you could want.

[Tin Can]

Break the rules

At close up magnifications more lenses fit

or Pinhole with X-Ray

[Andrew Plume]

I use an E Francais casket set if I want to go wide on 8 x 10 - the set covers 11 x 14, has a couple of softer focus lenses and a couple of wide angles, I can't recall the f stop(s) but they're way brighter than the small Protar's - check it out, if you can find one you get a lot of combinations for a little price, I've never been fussed about coated glass nor that a lens has to be in a shutter

good luck and regards

Andrew

[Ari]

An older Fujinon 210 will cover with some room for movements. The Fuji 180 has to positioned straight on and even then, you'll get slightly dark corners. It didn't bother me, but I still like to have some room for movements.
Shorter FLs get much more expensive, except for the 159mm Wollensak, but it's hard to see through except in very bright light; while it's an ok performer, you might outgrow it quickly if you continue with 8x10.
If you're in 8x10 for the long haul, consider the 165 Schneider SA/155 Grandagon/150 SSXL/150 Nikkor a worthy investment in your photo journey.

[Alan Gales]

If you want a true 8x10 lenses with plenty of coverage then you will have to pony up. If you don't mind little to no room for movements and maybe darkened corners then there are lenses out there. I own a Super Angulon 121mm that works straight on and it cost me less than 200 dollars. I read that Clive Barker used this lens at one time. I own an 8x10 but only used this lens for 4x5. It's too wide for me on 8x10.

Also realize that true 8x10 wide angle lenses with plenty of coverage get large and heavy. Some call them boat anchors.

[Bernice Loui]

Back in the 8x10 days (about two decades ago) the fave 8x10 wide angle were 200mm & 155mm Grandagon. These were GOOD, big-heavy and not budget lenses. Eventually the 155mm Grandagon went to a new owner, replaced by the 150mm Schneider SSXL. Smaller, lesser big at higher cost than the 155mm Grandagon at the time. Still have this lens to this day. Recent adder became a 165mm Super Angulon. These lenses are used today on 5x7 which makes them a moderate wide with remarkable amounts of camera movement possible and the light fall off problem is not nearly as significant as it would be for 8x10.

For moderate wide angle 8x10 lenses going to 210mm or so makes a real difference in what lenses can be used and their related cost. Once you're at about 150mm the cost, size and all related goes up lots unless you're willing to trade off optical performance. Beyond the challenge of optics, will the camera being used be comfortable with a focal length of 150mm or so. Then there is film flatness and a host of other requirements that are very real obstructions to realizing the potential performance of any given lens on 8x10.


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, if you're going to do all that is involved with producing 8x10 film images, they better be as best as they could given what is involved to create these 8x10 film images.

Yes, get the circular image thing.. then again this drive the choice of lens in a different direction.


Bernice




If you don't mind little to no room for movements and maybe darkened corners then there are lenses out there.

Also realize that true 8x10 wide angle lenses with plenty of coverage get large and heavy. Some call them boat anchors.

[Peter De Smidt]

IMO, "bargain" 8x10 lenses and related is "penny wise-pound foolish"..

Bernice

Good thing Edward Weston didn't agree.

I have a 159 WA Raptar. It was cheap, and it'll help me determine whether I like that focal length on 8x10. I've only used it a bit, but so far I have no complaints quality wise.

[Andrew Plume]

Hi Peter

Yes Edward (from memory) made a lot of his images with what he described as being a cheap RR

regards

Andrew

[ic-racer]

Thank you very much! I found one on ebay for under $100 with a dysfunctional aperture I'm going to attempt to fix. Thanks everyone for their suggestions, I guess I'll know if I like it when it gets here.

I think you will enjoy the lens. I have had mine for about ten years and it is one of my favorite lenses on 8x10. It is the only lens in its class.

[Willie]

Good thing Edward Weston didn't agree.

I have a 159 WA Raptar. It was cheap, and it'll help me determine whether I like that focal length on 8x10. I've only used it a bit, but so far I have no complaints quality wise.

Or Sally Mann. "Mann is noted for using large-format cameras—sometimes with damaged lenses that admit light leaks and imperfections—to reveal the uncanny beauty in her subjects, be they decomposing corpses, Civil War battlefields, or her own family."

If a lens gives you what you want it doesn't matter what it cost.

[Kwatson]

If a lens gives you what you want it doesn't matter what it cost.

Thank you everyone for your support, I'm hoping this 180mm fuji will do it for me but if I'm unhappy with it I have lots of other options to look for now!

[DolphinDan]

Hi,

I would also look at the Kodak WIDE FIELD EKTAR 190mm (7 1/2") f6.3 lens. I had the Fuji FUJINON-W 180mm f5.6 lens and found it vignetted in either the upper 2 or lower 2 corners every time. Even when photographing a Sycamore tree about 9 feet from the camera at f64. The WIDE FIELD EKTAR did cover these scenes. And similarly priced to the Fuji.

Daniel

[Alan Gales]

IMO, if you're going to do all that is involved with producing 8x10 film images, they better be as best as they could given what is involved to create these 8x10 film images.

Yes, get the circular image thing.. then again this drive the choice of lens in a different direction.


Bernice


I get your point. I ended up settling on 250mm as my widest lens for 8x10. If I want wider or I want to shoot color film, I've got a 4x5 reduction back for my camera. Even then, 90mm is as wide as I go. Of course that's a personal choice.

[DG 3313]

+1
Apo Symmar 210 mm F-5.6 (closer than infinity doesn't have to be close up)


Break the rules

At close up magnifications more lenses fit

or Pinhole with X-Ray

[MAubrey]

I'm a little surprised nobody mentioned a 165mm f/6.8 Angulon. Great coverage. Slightly wider than the OP's 90mm.

[Chauncey Walden]

I tested a 165mm Angulon against my 159mm f/12.5 Wolly and as a result the 165 ended up in the whole plate kit and the 159 stayed with the 8x10. The 210 G-Claron works fine but my most used lens on the 8x10 is a late production 240 Xenar.

[Corran]

Fascinating - the 159mm Wolly I had was abysmal on 8x10 and seemed like it would be better on WP, what with the poor corner performance. I have not used a 165 Angulon.

Sample variation, I suppose.

[Bernice Loui]

165mm f6.8 Angulon has a Schneider spec image circle of 300mm @ f16 (min for 8x10 is 312mm), too small for 8x10, might sort of cover at f45. Do use this lens on 5x7 with good results.

Tiny lens that does cover 8x10, Protar V f18 advertised as 110 degrees of image circle. Owned, tested and passed on after one sheet of 8x10 color transparency. Did not meet performance expectations. These were really low cost at one point, does cover 8x10, optical performance is not even close to a modern Biogon type_ish wide angle lens.


Bernice


Bernice

[Two23]

I'm assuming that for the Symmar S 210mm we are talking about the one with Copal 3, not Copal 1?


Kent in SD

[Corran]

If that is directed at me, since I mentioned the Symmar-S, no I'm talking about the Copal 1 lens. Are you thinking the Super Symmar XL? Different lens, and WAY more money, if you can even find one.

The Symmar-S doesn't officially cover, but I shot dozens of negatives with it. No movements available, but no complaints on performance.

[MAubrey]

165mm f6.8 Angulon has a Schneider spec image circle of 300mm @ f16 (min for 8x10 is 312mm), too small for 8x10, might sort of cover at f45. Do use this lens on 5x7 with good results.

Tiny lens that does cover 8x10, Protar V f18 advertised as 110 degrees of image circle. Owned, tested and passed on after one sheet of 8x10 color transparency. Did not meet performance expectations. These were really low cost at one point, does cover 8x10, optical performance is not even close to a modern Biogon type_ish wide angle lens.


Bernice


Bernice
Schneider also rated it at 95° at f/45 (=359.7mm).

Also owned and tested. Their main problem is bad lens variation in the earliest ones (the uncoated one and the early coated ones with the red triangle).

Stopped all the way down to f/64, I've made lovely contract prints on 11x14 with it.

[Chauncey Walden]

My 165 didn't make the corners focused in the foreground and stopped down. Corran was your 159 an f/9.5 or an f12.5? Mine is a late coated one.

[Corran]

Really don't remember at the moment, I'd have to dig through my created threads as I think I listed it here for sale.

Angulon-type wide-angle lenses in my usage have poor corner performance in general, best when stopped way down. I think field curvature more than anything.

[Two23]

So, is there a consensus on what is a good value wide angle lens for 8x10--not too expensive, offers some movements? Or is it impossible to have any consensus on a gear forum?:D


Kent in SD

[Peter De Smidt]

Haven't there been quite a few options listed? In 210, a g-claron, inside-lettering Fujinon, or some other 210 plasmats if little movement are needed, are all fairly modern lenses in recent shutters that are available for reasonable amounts. Wider gets harder. A 159 Wollensak can be a good performer, but they're fairly dim, they're in older shutters that have some peculiarities, e.g. your cable release can't be a long-throw type, and I doubt that they're as sharp in the corners as the much more expensive options. 165 Angulons are about 1/3 the price of, say, a 150 Nikkor SW. 120SWs can work, and they aren't that expensive, but they are super wide, they don't allow much wiggle room, but they certainly can work. I've used my 120 SA on my 8x10 a number of times with good results.

[Dugan]

Metrogon, perhaps?

[Chauncey Walden]

For really wide, if you don't need movements, the old 121 Super Angulon does a good job. I believe it has just a tad more coverage than the 120.

[Carsten Wolff]

.... for the real cheapskate/experimenter: I bought a 170mm f8 Fujinon copier lens in plastic mount for a few $ off the surplusshed I think, many years ago. Surprisingly covered 5x7" with ease and half-decent corners. May cover 8x10". Not sure what optical formula it was even. No shutter of course and not on par with proper LF glass I should think.
Saw a russian KMZ Orion 20cm f6.3 aerial lens recently cheap somewhere... Looks "Metrogony".... again: no shutter AFAIK. I'm sure people will have views on this one :).

[Dan Fromm]

Carsten, years ago a bunch (= > a handful) of 200/6.3 Orions popped up on eBay.com. Orion-1a, if I recall correctly. For more information, see http://www.photohistory.ru/index.php?pid=1207248189593846

Buyers complained bitterly about them. It seems that the outer surfaces were unintentionally aspherical, with ridges and other unevenness. So much for the belief that lenses for aerial cameras were all made to high standards.